To: Mayor Nolan Crouse and Members of City Council November 8, 2010
From: Richard Plain
Subject: Communication and Structural Flaws in the City Planning Process
Introduction:
Given the results of the public input received in the last election, Mayor Crouse has taken the initiative and asked Council to address ways of improving the existing city public involvement and communication process by January 4.
The City Administration has identified certain blocks of Council time in November and December that could be used to deal with this matter. It has also indicated:
“…it is necessary to understand the objectives and policy issues that are driving the need for a broad review of many community communication and consultation processes…”
The purpose of my submission to Council is to indicate there is a structural flaw in the Council and Administrations organizational structure that is at the heart of much of the non-financial concerns that are being evidenced by the citizens of St. Albert
It is suggested that if the new City council makes an in-principle decision dealing with rectifying the structural problem that many of the council communication and public participation issues will be focused and located in a venue the Council and administration has used in the past to deal with complex public representation and communication matters.
The Nature of the Structural Flaw in the City of St. Albert’s Organizational Structure
A quick review of the existing City website indicates the City of St. Albert
(1) Assessment Review Board; (2) Community Services Advisory Board;
(3) Environmental Advisory Board; (4) Library board; (5) St. Albert Economic Development Advisory Committee; and (6) Sub-division and Development Appeal Board.
The closing date for the applications was Nov. 5.
The above committees are examples of the belief held by the past council and their predecessors that citizens at large and members of council should pool their talents and skills and work together in furthering the interests of St. Albert
Some of the members of the present Council have served on such committees and know how important it is to have members of the community at large working together in a partnership arrangement with their elected representatives in order to deal with important social economic and environmental matters and challenges facing the City.
Members of Council who have been appointed to such committees and boards also know how much their detailed background knowledge helps other members of Council in assessing the merits of the recommendations and proposals that end-up being put on a Council agenda.
As matters currently stand unless something is changed city council will not have the same detailed input, understanding and oversight into planning and development matters that Council currently receives from members serving on other key council standing committees. Nor will members of the public have the opportunity to make the type of detailed representation on planning and development matters that they can in other committee venues.
The facts of the matter are that unless the present council makes a policy decision and directs the administration to re-establish a planning commission or a planning board or committee the existing status quo will prevail and public input into the planning and development process is St. Albert will be relegated to second class status compared to the public input that exists in areas such as the environment, economic development, social services and library.
The consequence of forcing all the public input process either through developers at their public meetings and the council political process has led to some of the most lengthy frustrating public hearings that anyone has witnessed in the history of the city for decades.
The high quality residential character of modern day St. Albert was planned and developed in a setting that stressed the importance of a community planning framework that included both a Municipal Planning Commission involving extensive public input as well as a City Administration and City Council approval process. This system lasted for over 30 years.
The partnership approach towards community planning involved both elected and non-elected representatives working with senior administrators in overseeing the subdivision process as well as making recommendations to Council on statutory matters pertaining to the Municipal Planning Commission and the Land-use by-law.
The dismantling of the MPC occurred in two stages – subdivision and development process was turned over to the City administration in 2004-07 and the MDP process was absorbed by Administration and City Council in 2007-10.
Citizens were left with 5 minute presentations to Council or input to meetings put on by developers.
Recommendation : Eliminate the Existing Structural Flaw in the St. Albert
Establish a Planning Commission, Committee or Board made-up of Council members, Citizens at large and Senior Administration to oversee the subdivision approval process and advise Council on all statutory matters related to planning that affects the City of St. Albert
This will provide a venue where Council, its administration and the general public can focus on planning issues and concerns and the city administration can keep in close contact with the elected and non-elected members of the community.
